Sen. Sotto’s plagiarism and the parable of the boiled frog: RH Bill first then abortion

Sen. Tito Sotto

Sen. Tito Sotto

Senator Sotto has been attacked from all sides because of his opposition to the RH Bill. And the attacks are now more vicious: they focus on his character as the dumb student in Iskul Bukol and they ask him to step down because of plagiarism.

Let us ponder on this: the truth of a statement is never diminished whether it was copied without citation from another person’s work. I can copy and paste the arguments of St. Aquinas without attribution, but the truth of what he wrote remains true. What does the Pro-RH groups fear in Sen. Sotto that they focus on his character and not on the arguments he propose? This is not the mark of reasonable and honorable men. “O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.” (Mark Anthony in Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2). Pardon me, my heart is in the podium where the good Senator stands and my heart shall stay with him until this persecution lasts.

Pro-RH grops accuse Sen. Sotto of plagiarism but not Sen. Pia Cayetano who also plagiarized. The judgement for Sen. Sotto should also be the judgment for Sen. Cayetano because they are both senators of the land and they committed the same offense. As Christ said, “For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” (Mt 7:2).

I think it is high time for media and for all of us to focus on Sen. Sotto’s allegations that local and international pro-abortion groups are behind the Pro-RH Bill lobby: USAID, UN agencies, International Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the world), Family Planning Organizations of the Philippines, Reproductive Health Advocacy Network, Likhaan (which has a website with instructions on how to do abortions as revealed by Pinoy Templars), and Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines. As one meme says: if the RH Bill is against abortion, then why are pro-abortion groups supporting it? Maybe they know something that many of us don’t: the first step to establish an abortion industry in a country is to establish the contraception industry.

Here’s a parable based on the Boiling Frog Syndrome (it is not really true so I am making a story instead):

Fili the Frog loves cold ponds and hates hot springs. But one day, a farmer caught Fili and placed him in a basin of cold water.  Fili swam and enjoyed the cold water.  Then the farmer slowly added heat below the basin, one burning charcoal at a time. Fili felt something is wrong, but he shrugged it off from his thoughts.  “I barely noticed anything,” he said.  “It is just as hot as it was a minute ago.”  So Fili the Frog stayed in the basin and died.

The moral of the story is this: Filipinos do not support abortion and the abortion lobby knows this.  But if the government makes contraceptives freely available through the passage of the RH Bill, then Filipinos will believe that babies are burden and contraceptives lessens the possibility for babies to happen.  Filipinos will then see pregnancy as a sign of failure and they will tell the pregnant woman, “hindi ka kasi nag-ingat” or “that’s because you were not careful”.  Pregnancy becomes a disease; condoms and contraceptive pills become  “essential medicines” to cure this disease.  And as this contraception mentality grows, abortion becomes accepted as a recourse for contraceptive failures.  And the abortion lobby becomes happy: it is now back in business. Yet is is still an underground business.

To recoup its investments from its advocacy (propaganda) work, the abortion lobby will then ask congressmen and senators to amend the RH Bill further to include abortion for very special cases like rape and incest.  If nobody objects to the bill, all reasons for abortion will be made acceptable, especially if the reason is “reproductive health” as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and cited without attribution in the RH Bill HB 4244: “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”  Slowly, very slowly, the abortion lobby heats the basin and boils the Filipino frog to death.

Such a catch-all definition for the “reproductive health” does not discriminate (this is a bad word in our politically correct  society but I am using it in its proper and original definition of knowing the subtle distinctions between things such as discriminating the wheat from the chaff): reproductive health is mental health is social well-being.  It’s a fuzzy logic.  This is why women in the Western countries will ask for abortion even for flimsiest emotional excuses, because emotional health is part of reproductive health.  A blurred definition results to a blurred mind and the result is moral chaos.  The world has turned upside down.  Women cannot anymore distinguish their bodies from that of their children in their womb; yet they would raise placards in the streets to protect turtle eggs and baby sharks. This blurring of the mind is also seen in lawmakers: they would insist that abortion is a right even though it is wrong, that fetuses less than 20 weeks old are not yet humans, and that a conception only begins when the fertilized ovum is planted in the uterine walls.   That is what we get when we play loose with definitions.  Words matter.

Let me end with a quote from Fr. John A Hardon, SJ:

It must seem strange to call anything our “gravest moral responsibility.” There are so many moral problems in the world today. How can any one of them pose our gravest responsibility. But so it is. In my judgment, the contraception mentality is the single deepest issue facing Western society.

I call it the contraception mentality. But we could just as well call it the contraception ideology. It was centuries in the making. It is devastating in its consequences. And it is at the root of the massive assault on the human family. Nothing less is at stake than the survival of Western, and with emphasis, American society.

And this also holds for the Filipino society.  So let us junk the RH bill.

Advertisements

Research proposal to verify 11 maternal deaths per year in response to Sen. Sotto’s challenge

If one of the primary issues to be addressed by the RH Bill is maternal and infant mortality, can we really get good data on this and not depend on Guttmacher Institute which was founded by Guttmacher, the president of Planned Parenthood–the largest abortion provider in the world? You already see the research bias of GI. I don’t know what data is available (the more the better), so I’ll just make the following proposal:

1. Get data from each hospital regarding the women who successfully gave birth and those who were not. We need the following data: age, married or not, number of children, ward type (to determine income level), and how long the woman stayed in the ward. We need data on how many died trying to give birth to a child and how many have children who died prior to birth or a week after birth. We need data on what the doctor says is the cause of death of the mother or of the child. Is the woman using artificial contraceptive or not? What type and how frequent (the last two are difficult data to get)2. We need data on hospitals and health centers where the birth or maternal death took place: medical centers, provincial hospitals, etc. We need to know their complete address to know whether they are rural or in the city. We need to know the daily costs per stay in a particular ward. This would help us determine the income bracket of the mother.

3. We can make several correlations and answer several questions: 1. Do more mothers die in rural hospitals than in city hospitals per 100 births? 2. What is the most prevalent cause of maternal mortality? 3. Do poor mothers tend to die more per 100 births than rich mothers? What is the most prevalent cause of infant mortality?

4. We need data at least for one year. If we can get data for more than 1 year, we can normalize our results to the population growth rate.

5. Based on these results we can make recommendations on how to lower maternal and infant mortality rates. Hospital administrators can make policies and legislators can make laws to address these specific problems.

6. We can start with one hospital who can give us data that we need. Write a paper about our research findings. Then add another hospital and improve the methodology, and write another report, and so on. The 11 maternal deaths per day may be true or not true, but we need the reasons why and the actual numbers. We need a real social science to answer the challenge of Sen. Sotto to verify the 11 maternal deaths per day.

If somebody wishes to collaborate on this herculean task, I can help in the research design, data analysis, and paper writing. But I need real data.

Red Tani of Filipino Freethinkers calls Natasha Campbell-McBride a pseudo-scientific quack

Red Tani wrote an article entitled Sotto’s Pseudoscientific Source: Who is Natasha Campbell-McBride?:

I don’t think so. As far as Sotto’s credibility goes, citing Dr. Natasha was even worse than plagiarizing Pope. Because Dr. Natasha is a quack. She is most known for inventing the idea that autism — and many other symptoms and diseases — is caused by bacteria in our gut, a condition she calls “Gut and Psychology Syndrome” or GAPS — because “gut bacteria” just doesn’t sound as scientific.

Since Ryan “Red” Tani, President of the Filipino Freethinkers, calls Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride a pseudo-scientific quack which Senator Sotto cited, may we know what are the medical and scientific qualifications of Red Tani for making such statements? For Dr. McBride, her qualifications are clear from her website, Doctor Natasha:

“Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride is a medical doctor with two postgraduate degrees: Master of Medical Sciences in Neurology and Master of Medical Sciences in Human Nutrition.
She graduated as a medical doctor in Russia. After practising for five years as a Neurologist and three years as a Neurosurgeon she started a family and moved to the UK, where she got her second postgraduate degree in Human Nutrition.”

A simple check of Dr. Natasha Campbell-Mcbride’s publications in Google Scholar shows that she is not a quack, otherwise reputable medical journals would not publish her writings. I also tried to check Ryan Tani’s publication in Google Scholar, but I could not find any.